Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a lean, dense operational guide: exact command signatures, a clearly sequenced draft→approval→publish workflow with thorough validation and failure handling, and clean structure that defers detail to the executable and external documentation. Only minor issues — the version-note placement and the unshown approval_record shape — keep conciseness and actionability at 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense imperative guidance with no padding and no explanations of basics, but "Use Python 3.8 or newer" is time-sensitive version information placed outside any 'old patterns'/'deprecated' section, and a few justificatory clauses ("This discloses realistic altered or synthetic content") could be trimmed. This matches anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed') better than 5, and is well above the midpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete command signatures cover every operation ("draft-upload --issue ID --video PATH --title TEXT --description TEXT --category ID --privacy public|private|unlisted --made-for-kids yes|no", "draft-comment --issue ID --video-id ID --text TEXT", "publish --draft PATH") and are backed by a real executable whose subcommands match. Minor gaps — no fully worked example invocation and the "approval_record" object's shape is never shown — place it at anchor 4 ('mostly executable; concrete commands with minor gaps') rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step sequence has explicit validation checkpoints throughout: the channel check "before a write", the sending path verifying "the author, decision, item and digest before any YouTube request", re-approval when "a changed draft or changed video needs a new approval", and error recovery for the risky operation ("A failed or interrupted write can have an uncertain result. Stop and check the channel with the user before any new attempt"). This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops) — the destructive-operation cap does not apply since validation is present and thorough. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines, cleanly sectioned (Consumer setup / Draft and approval / Consent and spam), pushes detail to external doc links one level deep, and its single bundle reference "scripts/youtube-publish" exists on disk with subcommands matching the documented ones. Per the simple-skill scoring note (<50 lines, no need for separate reference files), well-organized sections alone merit 5; no nesting or buried references are present. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |